Why Does Al-Qaeda Hate Us?

[spursncowboys]

Are you so upset with a thread that actually has substance and real discussion with very little bull that you have to come clutter it up with political rhetoric?

You're amazing.

As opposed to your post? What substance does this hold? Glad you can be so closed minded towards people who are not as open minded as you.

[boutons_deux]

If Magic Negro didn't got to Kupenhavn, the right-wing -slingers would trash him for abandoning/forgetting the city he built his career in, his adopted home town.

They are only interested in trashing MN, no matter what he does, in everything he does.

[spursncowboys]

If Magic Negro didn't got to Kupenhavn, the right-wing -slingers would trash him for abandoning/forgetting the city he built his career in, his adopted home town.

They are only interested in trashing MN, no matter what he does, in everything he does.

I don't see conservatives trying to make up false anger with what obama is throwing at them. I also doubt they having anything in their ideology about cronyism. Sure politicians do it in the name of conservatism, but rush and hannity and beck usually follow their ideas before a person.

[lefty]

Why does the CIA hate you?

I dunno

[boutons_deux]

"I don't see conservatives trying to make up false anger"

Their anger is all astroturf bull show business, to rouse their ignorant gun-toting loser rabble.

The Repugs would have bailed out the banksters, just like dubya started to do and McLiar would have continued.

again, if MN would have let Citi/BoA/WF/AIG all go to bankruptcy (where they still effectively are), the right-wingers would have trashed him for "destroying America" and not stopping the descent into extreme Depression.

[spursncowboys]

"I don't see conservatives trying to make up false anger"

Their anger is all astroturf bull show business, to rouse their ignorant gun-toting loser rabble.

The Repugs would have bailed out the banksters, just like dubya started to do and McLiar would have continued.

again, if MN would have let Citi/BoA/WF/AIG all go to bankruptcy (where they still effectively are), the right-wingers would have trashed him for "destroying America" and not stopping the descent into extreme Depression.

There was alot of conservatives who went against bush, because he went agianst their beliefs(immunity, bail outs). I was against all bail-outs. I don't believe govt. should decide what business is too big to fail. You write like a little kid. Half your words you wrote are put downs. Why is it astro turf? How come the Dem's paying people to go to meetings is not astro turf?

Once again, I hope you get a job trying to get libs elected.

[boutons_deux]

"I don't believe govt. should decide what business is too big to fail"

So who do you think should decide?

If no bail outs, what would you have done?

[Winehole23]

Just wary theory does indeed address preemptive war and it finds that preemptive war is indeed just. However, what we have here was the misuse of the word preemptive in place of preventative war which is not jus ad bellum.

Thanks for the clarification.

I'll cede to your familiarity with the true terminology involved here. I was surely mistaken.


...do please continue.

[mogrovejo]

The invasion of Iran by the Allies in the II WW was a case of an uncontroversial preventive war that can easily be seen as justified.

[LnGrrrR]

The invasion of Iran by the Allies in the II WW was a case of an uncontroversial preventive war that can easily be seen as justified.

Care to explain the justification?

[MannyIsGod]

The invasion of Iran by the Allies in the II WW was a case of an uncontroversial preventive war that can easily be seen as justified.

Not according to Just War Theory. If you'd like to go down a path other than Jus Ad Bellum then that is your prerogative but that is not what is being discussed above and the words "easily" and "justified" are quite relative.

The main fact that the war was preventative points to all options not being used. If you have time before an attack and it is not imminent then you have options and war is not necessary at that point. Jus Ad Bellum requires war to be the last resort, not the most convenient or likely to succeed at that point.

[mogrovejo]

Care to explain the justification?

In tactical terms? It prevented the occupation of Persia by the Axis, allowing the Persian Corridor that was instrumental for the US supplies to the Soviet Union and eventually the success in the Eastern Front and the control of the oil fields.

Not according to Just War Theory. If you'd like to go down a path other than Jus Ad Bellum then that is your prerogative but that is not what is being discussed above and the words "easily" and "justified" are quite relative.

The main fact that the war was preventative points to all options not being used. If you have time before an attack and it is not imminent then you have options and war is not necessary at that point.Jus Ad Bellum requires war to be the last resort, not the most convenient or likely to succeed at that point.

Jus ad bellum as a concept can be even more vague than words like easily and it's a term used by 20th century politologysts to express their own particular opinions. The Just War as defined by Cicero, Saint Augustin and the Catholic Cathecisms don't demand the strict idea of last resort for military operations as long as intent, cause, authority and proportionality were included. The alternative not used was to allow the Axis to invade Persia.

ETA:


Quotation from FDR's letter to the Shah:

"Viewing the question in its entirety involves not only the vital questions to which Your Imperial Majesty refers, but other basic considerations arising from Hitler's ambition of world conquest. It is certain that movements of conquest by Germany will continue and will extend beyond Europe to Asia, Africa, and even to the Americas, unless they are stopped by military force. It is equally certain that those countries which desire to maintain their independence must engage in a great common effort if they are not to be engulfed one by one as has already happened to a large number of countries in Europe. In recognition of these truths, the Government and people of the United States of America, as is well known, are not only building up the defenses of this country with all possible speed, but they have also entered upon a very extensive program of material assistance to those countries which are actively engaged in resisting German ambition for world domination."

[LnGrrrR]

In tactical terms? It prevented the occupation of Persia by the Axis, allowing the Persian Corridor that was instrumental for the US supplies to the Soviet Union and eventually the success in the Eastern Front and the control of the oil fields.

I wouldn't say that would justify it morally, personally. It would justify it tactically, yes.

Jus ad bellum as a concept can be even more vague than words like easily and it's a term used by 20th century politologysts to express their own particular opinions. The Just War as defined by Cicero, Saint Augustin and the Catholic Cathecisms don't demand the strict idea of last resort for military operations as long as intent, cause, authority and proportionality were included. The alternative not used was to allow the Axis to invade Persia.

If the Axis were on the precipice of invading Persia, wouldn't that therefore make it a preemptive strike, and not preventative?

Additionally, we did not join the war against the Axis until we were attacked. Once we are attacked, we're free to attack them how we wish, as long as proportionality is observed and we try to limit civilian casualties.

[MannyIsGod]

In tactical terms? It prevented the occupation of Persia by the Axis, allowing the Persian Corridor that was instrumental for the US supplies to the Soviet Union and eventually the success in the Eastern Front and the control of the oil fields.



Jus ad bellum as a concept can be even more vague than words like easily and it's a term used by 20th century politologysts to express their own particular opinions. The Just War as defined by Cicero, Saint Augustin and the Catholic Cathecisms don't demand the strict idea of last resort for military operations as long as intent, cause, authority and proportionality were included. The alternative not used was to allow the Axis to invade Persia.

ETA:


Quotation from FDR's letter to the Shah:

"Viewing the question in its entirety involves not only the vital questions to which Your Imperial Majesty refers, but other basic considerations arising from Hitler's ambition of world conquest. It is certain that movements of conquest by Germany will continue and will extend beyond Europe to Asia, Africa, and even to the Americas, unless they are stopped by military force. It is equally certain that those countries which desire to maintain their independence must engage in a great common effort if they are not to be engulfed one by one as has already happened to a large number of countries in Europe. In recognition of these truths, the Government and people of the United States of America, as is well known, are not only building up the defenses of this country with all possible speed, but they have also entered upon a very extensive program of material assistance to those countries which are actively engaged in resisting German ambition for world domination."

What he speaks of is not preventative war but preemptive war. He believes is it Jus Ad Bellum because it is inevitable and war is indeed, the last resort.